Historical DocumentSTATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS G. PELHAM
Govemcr Secrete
December 7, 2007
The Honorable Sonny .N1cCoy
Mayor, Monroe County
530 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040
Dear Mayor McCoy:
The Department has completed its review of the Monroe County proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (DCA No. 07-2), which was received on October 9, 2007.
Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional, and local
agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed.
The Department has reviewed the comprehensive plan amendment for consistency with
Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and has
prepared the attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report which outlines our
findings concerning the comprehensive plan amendment.
Monroe County is proposing amendments to address the maintenance and enhancement
of commercial and recreational working waterfronts by seeking to guide development in a
manner that preserves the working waterfront identity of the County. Although the Department
generally supports the intention expressed by Monroe County, several concerns must be
addressed. The Department has identified objections to the proposed amendments related to
internal inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan, vague language that does not provide
meaningful and predictable standards or provide meaningful guidelines for how the activities
will be implemented, and the lack of data and analysis to support the amendments. The
Department's identified objections reflect the concerns raised by commenting agencies. A
detailed discussion is provided in the attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments
Report.
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2100
Phone: 850-488-8466/SUNCOM 278-8466 Fax: 850-921-07811SUNCOM 291-0781
Website: www.dca.state.fl.us
COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE MOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Plane: 850.488.2356/SUNCOM 278-2356 Phone: 305289.2402 Phone: 850-488.795&SUNCOM 278-7956
Fax: 850-480-33OWSUNCOM 278.3309 Fax: 30S289-2442 Fax 850-922-562NSUNCOM 292.5623
The Honorable Sonny McCoy
December 7, 2007
Page 2
-%Iv staff and I are available to assist the County in addressing the issues identified in our
report. If you have any questions, please contact Mayte Santamaria, Planner, at (850) 488-4725.
Sincerely,
1
r Mike McDaniel, Chief
Office of Comprehensive Planning
MM/ms
Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc: Mr. Townsley Schwab, Acting Director of Planning and Environmental Resources
Ms. Carolyn A. Dekle Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council
1)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR THE MONROE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 07-2
December 7, 2007
Division of Community Planning
Areas of Critical State Concern
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, F.A.C.
INTRODUCTION
The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's
review of (Monroe County's proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan (DCA number
07-2) pursuant to Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. An objection will include a
recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other
approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some objections may have initially
been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the
Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the
Department's objection would take precedence.
Each objection must be addressed by the local government and corrected when the amendment
is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections, which are not addressed, may result in a
determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an
objection regarding missing data and analysis items, which the local government considers not
applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non -applicability
pursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a
determination of the non -applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient,
the objection will be considered addressed.
The comments, which follow the objections and recommendations section, are advisory in
nature. Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are
included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive,
concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing
with grammar, organization, mapping and reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state
review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are
advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they
appear under the "Objections" heading in this report.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 07-2
MONROE COUNTY
CONSISTENCY WITH Ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., Ch. 380.0552 (7), F.S., and Ch. 163, F.S.
The Department identifies the following objections, recommendations and comments to the
proposed amendment.
I. Future Land Use Element
Objection 1: Objective 101.4 - This objective is directed toward regulating future development
and redevelopment to maintain and "flexibly guide the evolution of the character of the
community and protect the.natural resources..." The objective lacks a specific, measurable,
intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. The objective does not
define the phrase "flexibly guide the evolution of the character of the community;" therefore,
there is no measurable provision to determine achievement of the objective of flexibly guiding
the evolving community character. The proposed amendment is creating an internal
inconsistency within the objective with the direction to both "maintain" the character of the
community and to flexibly "guide its evolution."
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(e), F.S.; Rule 9J-
5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise Objective 101.4 to either "maintain" the character of the
community or to "guide its evolution' to address the internal inconsistency. The objective
must include a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and makes
progress toward the community character that the County envisions in its comprehensive
plan.
If Objective 101.4 and its associated policies are revised to "maintain" the character of
the community, then the objective and policies need to identify the communities to be
maintained. Another objective and associated policies can be established to guide the
"evolving communities" to achieve the County's desired outcome for these communities.
Objection 2: Policy 101.4.5 - This policy relates to the Mixed Use/Commercial land use
category and to allow retail and office uses "consistent with the evolving community character
and the natural environment." The policy is also directed to the "maintenance and enhancement
of commercial fishing" and other related uses "which support the fishing industry." As with
Objective 101.4, the policy attempts to address two incompatible actions: maintain and enhance
commercial fishing and guide the evolving community character. The policy does not define the
phrase "evolving community character" and does not provide meaningful and predictable
standards and guidelines for making land use decisions consistent with the "evolving community
character" nor are there meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines to encourage "[t]he
3
maintenance and enhancement of commercial fishing, and related traditional water dependent
and water related uses..."
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; Section
163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(1), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise Policy 101.4.5 to include the meaningful and predictable
standards and guidelines to guide the evolving community character to the outcome
desired and include a definition of the evolving community character or the desired
outcome or include the guidelines and incentives that will be used to ensure the
maintenance and enhancement of commercial fishing. If the policy and Objective 101.4
will guide the development toward the "evolving community character." then "evolving
community character" and the intended outcome needs to be defined.
Objection 3: Policy 101.4.6 - The policy lacks meaningful and predictable standards because the
policy does not define what is considered "evolving water dependent and water related uses;"
and does not specify how affordable and employee housing will be encouraged.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise Policy 101.4.5 to define the "evolving water dependent and
water related uses." Also, include specific guidelines or incentives that will be used to
encourage affordable and employee housing.
Obiection 4: Policy 101.4.7 — The County has proposed to amend Policy 101.4.7 to include
language describing the Maritime Industries (MI) (zoning) District within the Industrial future
land use category. The proposed amendment does provide criteria of where or how the MI
(zoning) District can be applied, and it relies upon a document that exists outside of the
Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Land Development Regulation Zoning Maps).
The proposed amendment proposes an allocated density of 8-12 du/ 10-15 rooms per acre and
a maximum net density of 12-18 du/25 rooms per acre for the Maritime Industries (zoning)
District within the Industrial future land use category. This proposed amendment is internally
inconsistent with Policy 101.4.21, the Future Land Use Densities and Intensities Table that
assigns the 1'iidustrial future land use category a density of ldu/0 rooms per acre and a
maximum net density of 2 du per acre. Additionally, data and analysis was not provided to
evaluate the compatibility of the proposed density increase with the principal purpose of the
Industrial future land use category which is to provide for the development of industrial,
manufacturing, and warehouse and distribution uses or with the purpose of the MI (zoning)
District which is to establish and conserve areas suitable for water port uses, water -dependent
support facilities and maritime uses such as ship building, ship repair and other water
dependent manufacturing and service uses. Data and analysis was not provided to evaluate
the suitability of the locations with the proposed density increases with natural resources.
Data and analysis was not provided evaluating potential impacts to hurricane evacuation by
4
the proposed increase in density. Furthermore, data and analysis has not been submitted to
address potential water supply issues from the proposed increase in density.
The proposed amendment proposes to allow the construction of public lodging facilities and
commercial and industrial non-residential floor area that will serve as storm shelters and
recovery centers within the Maritime Industries (MI) district pursuant to Land Development
Regulations: Section 9.5-120.4 (d) "Development not impacting hurricane evacuation times"
and Section 9.5-124.3 "Development not affected." The proposed amendment defers to the
land development regulations to exempt the construction of public lodging facilities and
commercial and industrial non-residential floor area outside of the Permit Allocation System.
The proposed amendment is internally inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because (1)
Policy 101.2.6 prohibits new transient residential units including hotel or motel rooms; (2)
Policy 101.4.21 does not allocate density for transient residential uses within the Industrial
future land use category; (3) Policy 101.3.1 directs the County to maintain the balance
between residential and non-residential growth by limiting the square footage of non-
residential development to maintain a ratio of approximately 239 square feet of new non-
residential development for each new residential unit permitted through the Residential
Permit Allocation System; and (4) Policy 502.1.1 that directs the County to permit only port
and port related land uses within the Safe Harbor/Peninsular port area of Stock Island.
Data and analysis has not been submitted to demonstrate how public lodging facilities are a
compatible use within the Industrial future land use category. Data and analysis has not been
submitted to address potential water supply issues for the proposed increase in density and
intensity.
• The proposed amendment states that "no development order for new residential uses or
structures shall be issued except for portions of the MI District unsuitable for dockage of
vessels." This language does not provide meaningful and predictable standards related to
determining the suitability of the location for the dockage of vessels or new residential uses.
The proposed amendment proposes to allow "dwelling unit allocations attributable to
houseboats be transferable to uplands." The proposal to transfer "dwelling unit allocations
attributable to houseboat" is internally inconsistent with Policy 102.1.1 and 204.2.1 which
state that submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned
any density or intensity as well as Policy 101.4.21 which states that the allocated densities for
submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and that maximum
net densities bonuses shall not be available. Additionally, allocations attributable to
houseboats appears internally inconsistent with Objective 101.5 and Policies 101.5.1,
101.5.2, and 101.5.4 which direct residential allocations to proposed dwelling units that
encourage a compact form of residential growth that results in infill development in platted,
improved subdivisions and provide disincentives for locating dwelling units within coastal
high flood hazard areas. Data and analysis has not been provided to specify that houseboats
have been awarded residential dwelling unit allocations or that the density for these
structures is recognized under the Comprehensive Plan. Data and analysis has not been
submitted to demonstrate if any or how many houseboats have been awarded dwelling unit
allocations and through what process such allocations were made. Data and analysis has not
been submitted on the locations of the houseboats and meaningful and predictable standards
have not been provided to determine or guide where the allocations attributable to houseboat
can be transferred.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(a) and (c), F.S.;
Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3177 (10)(a), (e) and (h);
Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2) through (6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(1), F.A.C.; Rule
9J-5.006(2)(a) through (e), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Demonstrate, through additional data and analysis that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the Permit Allocation System, is consistent with the
prohibition on new transient residential, is consistent with maintaining a 24-hour
hurricane evacuation clearance time, is internally consistent with density and intensity
standards for the future land use categories, maintains the balance between residential
and non-residential growth, and is consistent with preserving the port area of Stock
Island.
Provide data and analysis to evaluate the compatibility of the proposed residential and
transient density increase with the purpose of the Industrial future land use category as
well as with the purpose of the MI (zoning) District. Provide data and analysis evaluating
the suitability of the locations with the proposed density increases with natural resources.
Provide data and analysis to address potential water supply issues from the proposed
increase in density.
Revise the policy to provide standards or meaningful guidelines for determining locations
unsuitable for dockage and where new residential uses are appropriate.
Revise the policy to remove the inconsistencies with the other Comprehensive Plan
provisions that state submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves are
not assigned any density or intensity. Provide data and analysis to demonstrate how many
or if any houseboats have been awarded dwelling unit allocations. Identify the process by
which houseboats obtained allocation(s). Submit data and analysis identifying the
locations of the houseboats and provide meaningful guidelines of where the allocations
attributable to houseboats can be transferred to uplands.
II. Conservation and Coastal Management Element
Objection 5: Objective 212.4 and Policies 212.4.1, 212.4.2, and 212.4.3
Monroe County proposes amending Objective 212.4 to refer to the Marina Siting Plan and to
delete Policies 212.4.1, 212.4.2, and 212.4.3 because of "the adoption of the Marina Siting Plan
and completion of the marine facilities survey" (Support Data and Analysis, page 2 of 6). The
Marina Siting Plan was not included as an amendment in this package and has not been adopted
by Monroe County. The County has not provided data and analysis to demonstrate that the
County has completed the marine facilities survey.
0
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section
163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (0, (g), (i)
and 0), F.S.; Section 163.31'S(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.;
Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.: Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 3, 5, 6 and 9. F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c) 1 , 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4),
F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Aw. policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in
the Marina Siting Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved
and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can propose other interim
protections and guidelines until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Plan. The
County also needs to provide data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has
completed the marine facilities survey.
The County can adopt the `Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date
and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the
document is being adopted.
Obiection 6: Objective 212.4 - The Objective proposes deleting language that requires Monroe
County to complete an analysis of the need for additional marina facilities. Data and analysis was
not submitted to indicate that the needs analysis was completed or if the study determined a need
for additional marina facilities. The proposed amendment defers the standards to be implemented
to the `Marina Siting Plan' for the development of new marinas and the redevelopment and
expansion of current marine facilities. The Marina Siting Plan was not included as an
amendment in this package and has not been adopted by Monroe County.
The objective does not meet the definition of an objective [see Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.]
because the objective lacks the specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and
marks progress toward a goal. In addition, the objective does not define what is considered
"maximum physical advantage" and "no unreasonable or excessive impacts ... on marine
resources."
The objective lacks the specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks
progress toward the goal of preserving and enhancing existing commercial harbors capable of
accommodating and servicing deep -draft vessels as well as ocean-going vessels, including
ferries, other p8tenger vessels, cruisers and fishing vessels.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(e), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), (i) and 6), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5.005(2)(g), F.A.C; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1, 2,
3, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Submit data and analysis indicating the needs analysis for additional
marina facilities has been completed. The needs analysis is necessary in order to
determine if existing marinas will meet the needs of future demand. The County can
7
revise the objective to include the language that directs the County to complete the survey
as well as language that directs the County to periodically update the survey to determine
the future needs for additional marina facilities.
Revise Objective 212.4, as a policy [see Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.] with specific and
meaningful standards to define "maximum physical advantage" and -no unreasonable or
excessive impacts ... on marine resources." In addition, include a new Objective 212.4 that
includes a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable for ensuring the
protection of marine resources with the development of new marinas and the
redevelopment and expansion of current marine facilities.
Include a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and makes progress
toward the preservation and enhancement of existing commercial harbors capable of
accommodating and servicing deep -draft vessels as well as ocean-going vessels,
including ferries, other passenger vessels, cruisers and fishing vessels in new Objective
212.4 or include a new objective with associated policies to address this issue.
The Marina Siting Plan should be included in the Plan when it is finalized and approved.
Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the Marina Siting
Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.
The County can adopt the `Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date
and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the
document is being adopted.
Obiection 7: Policy 212.4.2 - The amendment proposes to delete Policy 212.4.2 which requires
Monroe County to complete a survey of all existing recreational and commercial marinas,
including, at a minimum:
1. number of wet and dry slips;
2. usage rates of wet and dry slips;
3. breakout of slips by boat size;
4. on -site amenities including the number of parking spaces;
5. surrounding uses and any known or potential compatibility problems;
6. availability for public use (recreational marinas only);
7. number of boat ramps provided and the boat lanes for each ramp;
8. condition of facilities;
9. existing DER -accepted documentation of water quality trends;
10. availability of pump -out facilities; and
11. potential for marina expansion according to siting criteria (See Policy 212.4.3).
The County has not provided any data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has
implemented this Policy. The Marina Siting Plan does provide information on the average
densities of marine facilities and boat ramps, the total number of marina facilities in the Florida
Keys and the types of marine facilities; however, the County has not provided sufficient data and
analysis to ensure that Policy 212.4.2 has been entirely implemented. A copy of the Working
Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan was not submitted with this amendment package. The
Review Draft Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan (dated April 30, 2007) on Monroe
County's website includes a section describing the update of a marine facilities database by
surveys conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Center for
Urban and Environmental Solutions at FAU. The marine facilities database update may satisfy
the tasks of this Policy but data and analysis was not submitted to indicate the surveys were
completed.
Failure to complete the survey and instead to delete the requirement is inconsistent with the
Principles for Guiding Development because this information is an essential part of a marina
siting plan, which should both identify the need and how that need can be met consistent with the
protection of marine resources.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (0, (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section
163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.412(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4),
F.A.C.]
Recommendation: The County should retain Policy 212.4.2 if the policy has not been
implemented. Provide data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has implemented
Policy 212.4.2. Also include data and analysis evaluating whether existing marinas will
meet future demand and, if not, include guidelines and standards in the policy to guide
land use decisions toward meeting future demand.
Obiection 8: Policy 212.4.3 — The amendment proposes to delete Policy 212.4.3 which directs
Monroe County to develop and adopt marina siting criteria and outlines specific criteria to
consider when adopting marina siting criteria, such as that marina construction not involve the
destruction of any significant marine wetlands or seagrass beds and to consider shoreline
modification when siting marinas. It is presumed that this policy was included in the County
comprehensive plan because these specific criteria were important to address the protection of
natural resources. It is premature to delete Policy 212.4.3 before the Marina Siting Plan is
finalized, approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, data and analysis
has not been provided to demonstrate that the Marina Siting Plan incorporates all the criteria
specified in Policy 212.4.3 for the siting of marinas.
Failure to include criteria specified in Policy 212.4.3 and instead to delete the requirement is
inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development because this information is an essential
part of a marina siting plan, which should both identify the need and how that need can be met
consistent with the protection of marine resources.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section
163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4),
F.A.C.]
Z
Recommendation: The County should retain Policy 212.4.3 until the Marina Siting Plan
is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan and revise the policy to include meaningful and
predictable standards for ensuring the protection of natural resources with the
development and the redevelopment of marine facilities. These standards can be interim
guidelines until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan with criteria as good or better than the criteria specified in Policy
212.4.3 for the siting of marinas.
The County can adopt the 'Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date
and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the
document is being adopted.
Obieetion 9: Policy 212.4.4 - The proposed amendment renumbers this policy to 212.4.1. The
proposed amendment states that "applicants for development approval of marinas with three (3)
or more slips, other than marinas in existing harbors located in the Maritime Industries (MI)
District, shall meet the following: 1. Monroe County's marina siting criteria set forth in the
Monroe County Marina Siting Plan; and 2. Monroe County's dock siting criteria." This is
inconsistent with Objective 212.4 which states ",vionroe County shall adhere to criteria set forth
in the Marina Siting Plan for the development of new marinas and the redevelopment and
expansion of current marine facilities." This policy does not provide meaningful and predictable
standards for exempting marinas in the Maritime Industries district from the Marina Siting Plan
or include meaningful and predictable standards for developing marinas within the Maritime
Industries district. This amendment is also inconsistent with Policy 212.5.4 which establishes
restrictions that apply to all structures built over or adjacent to water, such as restrictions on the
maximum permitted length of docks and the percent of the navigable portion of a man-made
waterbody that must remain free from obstruction. This policy does not provide meaningful and
predictable standards for exempting marinas in the Maritime Industries district from the dock
siting criteria or meaningful and predictable standards for developing marinas within the
Maritime Industries district.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(b) and (f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.;
Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5.412(4), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Address the internal inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and
revise the policy to delete the reference to the Marina Siting Plan and retain the reference
to Policy 212.4.3 until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan. Provide data and analysis to support exempting marinas in the
Maritime Industries district from the Marina Siting Plan and dock siting criteria. Revise
the policy to include meaningful and predictable standards for the development of
marinas within the MI District.
The Marina Siting Plan should be included in the Plan when it is finalized and approved.
Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the Manna Siting
10
Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.
The County can adopt the 'Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date
and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the
document is being adopted.
Obieetion 10: Policy 212.4.6 - The amendment proposes to delete Policy 212.4.6 which directs
Monroe County to prohibit the siting of new marinas until the full utilization of existing marinas
has occurred within a 5 mile radius of the proposed new marina site. The County did not include
data and analysis to support the deletion of this policy and its deletion without the adoption of a
marina siting plan is inconsistent with the protection of marine resources as specified in the
Principles for Guiding Development.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section
163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4),
F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Retain Policy 212.4.6 until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized,
approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan or provide data and analysis
supporting the deletion of this policy.
The Marina Siting Plan should be included in the Plan when it is finalized and approved.
Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the Marina Siting
Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.
The County can adopt the `Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date
and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the
document is being adopted.
Obiection 11: Goal 219 - The County has proposed adding Goal 219 to address the preservation
of commercial, recreational and public access to the navigable waters of the State of Florida.
While the goal guides the County to address recreational and commercial working waterfronts
based upon current and projected demand, the goal does not define the ultimate direction towards
ensuring commercial, recreational and public access or how the County will "flexibly balance the
protection of recreational and commercial working waterfronts with the provision of water -
related recreational activities and the preservation of coastal and natural resources as well as
evolving local and regional land use needs."
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section
163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-
5.003(52), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule
9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise Goal 219 to establish what is the long-term end toward which
programs or activities are ultimately directed and accomplished by "flexibly balancing]
the protection of recreational and commercial working waterfronts with the provision of
11
water -related recreational activities and the preservation of coastal and natural resources
as well as evolving local and regional land use needs."
Objection 12: Policy 219.1.1 — The County has proposed adding Policy 219.1.1. The policy
lacks meaningful and predictable standards because the policy does not define what is to be
considered "evoh ing community character," "public values" or the "evolving local and regional
interests and needs.' Itern 6 in this Policy, allows public access and the creation of public spaces
in the redevelopment of marine facilities "subject to reasonable limits" but does not include
guidelines for determining "reasonable limits." Also, item 7 in this Policy. provides for variances
to be granted to enable traditional uses and uses compatible with the evolving local and regional
interests and needs within the Maritime Industries District, Commercial Fishing Area District,
Commercial Fishing Village District and the Commercial Fishing Special District but does not
include meaningful and predictable standards for determining what are the "traditional
uses ... and uses compatible with the evolving local and regional interests and needs," what type
of variances will be granted or what criteria will be utilized to grant variances.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section
163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4),
F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise Policy 219.1.1 to define the "evolving community character,"
"public values" and the "evolving local and regional interests and needs." Include
guidelines for applying "reasonable limits" on public access and the creation of public
spaces in the redevelopment of marine facilities. Also, include meaningful and
predictable standards for determining what are the "traditional uses ... and uses compatible
with the evolving local and regional interests and needs," what type of variances will be
granted or what criteria will be utilized to grant the variances.
Objection 13: Policy 219.1.2 - The County has proposed adding Policy 219.1.2 that identifies
strategies to protect and enhance recreational and commercial working waterfronts. The Policy
further directs the County to "include all land as defined in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes,
including land utilized as port facilities" to calculate densities and intensities within the Maritime
Industries (zoning) District.
Chapter 380.31(7), Florida Statutes, defines land as "the earth, water, and air above, below, or on
the surface, and includes any improvements or structures customarily regarded as land." This
approach is internally inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as it includes
submerged lands in the calculation of densities and intensities. Policy 101.4.21 states the
allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0.
Furthermore, Policies 102.1.1 and 204.2.1 state that submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater
ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section
12
163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9. F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4),
F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise the policy to explain how densities and intensities within the
Maritime Industries (MI) District will be determined and ensure that the methodology is
not inconsistent with any Comprehensive Plan provisions.
Objection 14: Objective 219.2 and Policy 219.2.1 — The County proposes adding Objective
219.2 to establish a comprehensive program to promote and protect commercial, recreational and
public access and Policy 219.2.1 to establish a Working Waterfront Program. The objective and
policy lack specificity in accomplishing the policy and achieving the objective because neither
the objective nor the policy state when the comprehensive program and the Working Waterfront
Program will be established or propose interim protections until the programs are established.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(0, F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(g) and 0), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 3, and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5.012(3)(c) 1 , 6 and 9, F.A.C.]
Recommendation: The County should establish a date/deadline for developing its
Working Waterfronts Program and include interim standards and guidelines to preserve
working waterfronts until new guidelines and standards are adopted based upon the
inventories and analyses specified in the policy.
Objection 15: Policy 219.4.1— The County proposes adding Policy 219.4.1 to develop strategies
to ensure continued Commercial, Recreational and Public Access through the identification and
implementation of regulatory incentives, but the policy lacks meaningful and predictable
standards because it does not provide the incentives or the criteria to be use to ensure continued
Commercial, Recreational and Public Access.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(g) and 0), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c) 1 , 6 and 9, F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise the policy to include the incentives and criteria to be utilized to
ensure continued Commercial, Recreational and Public Access to navigable waters and
provide guidance for developing the more detailed land development regulations.
Objection 16: Objective 219.5 — The County proposes adding Objective 219.5 "to promote a
No Net Loss Policy" for working waterfronts. The proposed objective states the loss of working
waterfront in one geographic area must be balanced by a gain elsewhere. The Objective could
result in an oversupply of working waterfronts in one area of the County and an undersupply in
other areas. The Objective does not include a policy with meaningful and predictable standards
on how to achieve a no net loss in working waterfronts within geographic areas.
13
[Section 163.3177(l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(e), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (0, (g), (1) and 0), F.S.; Section
163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(g),
F.A.C; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012("2), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and
9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Include a policy with meaningful and predictable standards that
defines how the County will achieve no net losses of working waterfronts within each
geographic area [e.g. within the same ROGO sub -area, between ROGO sub -areas, within
or adjacent to Tier I (Natural Areas) or Special Protection Areas].
Objection 17: Objective 219.6 and Policy 219.6.1 — The County proposes adding Objective
219.6 to ensure an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating
access to marine and coastal waters. The Objective does not provide guidance for what is
considered "an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access."
Furthermore, this Objective relies on Policy 219.6.16 to ensure an adequate stock of
Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access, but Policy 219.6.1, the only
associated policy with this objective, does not include meaningful guidelines to achieve the
objective. The Policy states that the County "may" establish an acquisition program and the
County "may" establish a fund for acquiring lands.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(g), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.0 I 2(3)(b) 1 ,2, 3, and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5.012(3)(c) 1 and 9, F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise to provide guidelines for what is "an adequate stock of
Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access" and include a policy with
meaningful and predictable standards that define how this "stock" will be achieved.
Obiection 18: Policy 219.8.1— The County proposes adding Policy 219.8.1 to provide land use
bonuses to encourage the development of commercial, recreational and public access uses. This
amendment presents various types of potential bonuses (increased FAR, increased number of
slips, parking variances, increased area for water -related uses, or other measure of land use
intensity) but does not provide meaningful and predictable standards for assigning or awarding
the bonuses and it does not establish the increases in density and intensity that will be granted.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section
163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4),
F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise the Policy to establish meaningful and predictable standards for
assigning or awarding land use bonuses and establish the increases in density and
14
intensity that will be granted to encourage the development of commercial, recreational
and public access uses.
Objection 19: Policy 219.9.1 and Objective 219.10— The County proposes adding Policy
219.9.1 to consider establishing a working waterfront overlay district to provide for use
restrictions, development regulations and guidelines. Additionally, the County proposes adding
Objective 219.10 to promote traditional maritime activities in the waterfront overlay district.
This creates an internal inconsistency as Objective 219.10 is dependent on Policy 219.9.1 which
may or may not be implemented by the County. Policy 219.9.1 also defers the establishment of
"Design Guidelines and Development Standards for recreational and commercial waterfronts" to
the land development regulations rather than including meaningful and predictable standards for
the use and development of land and meaningful guidelines for the more detailed land
development regulations.
Furthermore, Objective 219.10 does not define "traditional maritime activities" or provide
guidelines for permitting "traditional maritime activities... within all appropriate land use
categories." The appropriate land use categories have not been identified and meaningful and
predictable standards have not been provided to determine circumstances when "traditional
maritime activities' would not be allowed.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(b) and (f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.;
Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2)
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise Policy 219.9.1 to ensure the establishment and implementation
of the working waterfront overlay districts will be completed. Additionally, the County
should develop additional/interim guidelines to promote traditional maritime activities
and protect recreational and commercial working waterfronts until the overlay districts
are completed.
Define 'traditional maritime activities" in Objective 219.10 and in the implementing
policy provide guidelines for permitting "traditional maritime activities... within all
appropriate land use categories." Provide meaningful and predictable standards for when
"traditional maritime activities" would and would not be allowed and specify the
appropriate land use categories where "traditional maritime activities" are permitted.
Revise Policy 219.9.1 to include meaningful and predictable standards to guide the
development of recreational and commercial working waterfronts. These standards can
be established as interim standards until the Design Guidelines and Development
Standards are prepared and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.
The County can adopt the Design Guidelines and Development Standards by reference by
identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions
and edition of the document is being adopted.
15
Obiection 20: Policy 219.9.1 & Policy 219.11.1 — The County proposes adding Policy 219.9.1
to consider establishing a working waterfront overlay district and, when appropriate, establish
design guidelines and development standards in the land development regulations. Additionally,
the County proposes adding Policy 219.11.1 to protect the public's view of the waterfront by
enforcing setbacks, height restrictions, etc as set forth in the Design Guidelines and Development
Standards. This creates an internal inconsistency as Policy 219.11.1 is dependent on Policy
19.9.1 which may or may not be implemented by the County.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(b) and (f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.;
Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2)
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Revise Policy 219.9.1 to ensure the development of the design
guidelines. The County should specify when the design guidelines will be completed, or
if need be, provide a schedule for the completion of the design guidelines. The County
should develop additional/interim guidelines to promote traditional maritime activities
and protect the public's view of the waterfront until the design guidelines are completed
and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.
The County can adopt the Design Guidelines and Development Standards by reference by
identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions
and edition of the document is being adopted.
I11. Marina Siting Plan
Objection 21: The Marina Siting Plan — The Marina Siting Plan is inconsistent with proposed
amendment as it refers to Policies 212.4.1 and 212.4.3 in the Comprehensive Plan that are
proposed to be deleted and refers to Policy 212.4.7 which is proposed to be renumbered as
212.4.3.
The `Marina Siting Plan' includes the Marina Site Suitability Maps that depict several coastal
islands from North Key Largo to Key West as conditional areas for marinas. This is inconsistent
with Comprehensive Plan Policy 102.7.2 which directs the County to restrict the activities
permitted on offshore islands, for example marinas are not to be permitted on offshore islands.
The Marina Site Suitability Maps are also inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 102.8.2
which states Monroe County shall not create new access via new bridges, new causeways, new
paved roads or new commercial marinas to or on units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS).
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section
163.3178(2)(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.005(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.]
16
Recommendation: Revise the Marina Siting Plan to address the inconsistencies with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Additionally, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) provides
the following recommendations: FWC recommends that the N4arina Siting Plan be revised to
address the protective measures that would have been provided by following Policies 212.4.1
through 212.4.3 before including it by reference into the comprehensive plan and that it is
premature to rely on the FWC management plan for manatees within the Marina Siting Plan
because the it has not been approved by the FWC Commissioners.
The Department of Environmental Protection also offers recommendations: Section 18-
21.0041(1)(b)9, F.A.C., should be referenced in the Marina Siting Plan and cited in appropriate
locations throughout the document, such as on page 10 under State Regulations and on page 39
under Site Suitability Analysis. Also, the Site Suitability Zones listed on pages 13. and the
Exclusionary, Preferred and Conditional Zones described on pages 40-41 should be revised to
reflect this regulation. In addition, the Department suggests that Monroe County Code subsection
9.5-349(m)(5) may require revision, because it implies that a marina on sovereign submerged
lands can be built over a benthic community.
As stated under the State Regulation section on page 11 of the Marina Siting Plan, most
Monroe County waters are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). Accordingly,
Subsection 373.414(1), F.S., should also be referenced in that section of the Marina Siting Plan,
since activities in OFWs are required to meet higher water quality standards. The references
contained in the Federal Regulation section (4-6) should also be verified. For example, although
the State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) was listed, Monroe County is specifically
excluded from the SPGP. Thus, that reference should be deleted.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT
The proposed amendments are not consistent with the following Principles for Guiding
Development, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute:
Principle (a) To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and
development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the
continuation of the area of critical state concern designation.
Principle (b) To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef
formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
Principle (c) To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater
wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune
ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat.
Principle (e) To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout
the Florida Keys.
17
Principle (0 To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the
natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic
character of the Florida Keys.
Principle (g) To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
Principle (1) To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida
Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
These Principles for Guiding Development inconsistencies can be resolved by addressing the
objections stated above.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed amendments are not consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187,
Florida Statute, including the following goals and policies:
Goal (6) Public Safety, Policies (b) 22 and 23: Require local governments, in cooperation
with regional and state agencies, to prepare advance plans for the safe evacuation of
coastal residents; and require local governments, in cooperation with regional and state
agencies, to adopt plans and policies to protect public and private property and human
lives from the effects of natural disasters. This requirement relates to Objection 4.
Goal (7) Water Resources, Policies (b) 5 and 13: Ensure that new development is
compatible with existing local and regional water supplies and identify and develop
alternative methods of wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse of wastewater to reduce
degradation of water resources. This requirement relates to Objection 4.
Goal (8) Coastal and Marine Resources, Policies (b) 4, 6, and 10: Protect coastal
resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development;
encourage land and water uses which are compatible with the protection of sensitive
coastal resources; and give priority in marine development to water -dependent uses over
other uses. This requirement relates to Objections 1 through 21.
Goal (9)- Natural Systems and Recreational Lands, Policies (b) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7: Conserve
forests, wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife to maintain their environmental,
economic, aesthetic, and recreational values; acquire, retain, manage, and inventory
public lands to provide recreation, conservation, and related public benefits; prohibit the
destruction of endangered species and protect their habitats; and protect and restore the
ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their long-term environmental,
economic, and recreational value. This requirement relates to Objections 1 through 21.
Goal (15) Land use, Policy (b) 6: Consider, in land use planning and regulation, the
impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water, and other
18
natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. This requirement
relates to Objection 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 18.
Goal (17) Public Facilities, Policies (b) 1 and 2: Provide incentives for developing land in
a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities; and promote rehabilitation and
reuse of existing facilities, structures, and buildings as an alternative to new construction.
This requirement relates to Objection 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 18.
Goal (19) Transportation, Policies (b) 5: Ensure that existing port facilities and
airports are being used to the maximum extent possible before encouraging the
expansion or development of new port facilities and airports to support economic
growth. This requirement relates to Objection 4, 9, 10, and 18.
Goal (25) Plan Implementation, Policies (b) 2, 3, and 7: Ensure that every level of
government has the appropriate operational authority to implement the policy
directives established in the plan; establish effective monitoring, incentive, and
enforcement capabilities to see that the requirements established by regulatory
programs are met; and ensure the development of strategic regional policy plans
and local plans that implement and accurately reflect state goals and policies and
that address problems, issues, and conditions that are of particular concern in a
region. This requirement relates to Objections I through 21.
These State Comprehensive Plan issues can be resolved by addressing the objections stated
above.
19
South
Florida
Regional
Planning _
Council
MEMORANDUM
DATE-: NOVEMBER 5, 2007
TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS
FR0,'1: STAFF
Ilci
AGENDA ITE.i 46d
SUBJECT: MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Introduction
On September 25, 2007 Council staff received proposed amendment package #07-2 to the Monroe County
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan for review of consistency with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South
Florida (SRPP). Staff review is undertaken pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rules 9J-5 and 9J-
11, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
Communih• Profile
Monroe County, incorporated in 1824, is the southernmost county in the State of Florida. The County
consists of a mainland portion (782 square miles) bordered by Collier County to the north and Miami -
Dade County to the east, and an archipelago, known as the Florida Keys, extending from northeast to
southwest for 120 miles (102 square miles), and separating the Gulf of Mexico from the Atlantic Ocean.
The mainland portion is occupied by Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve and is
virtually uninhabited. According to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, the unincorporated
portion of Monroe County had a population of 36,466 in 2006, an approximately 1.2% increase in the
population since 2000. The economy of Monroe County is based on tourism, fishing, retirees, and the
military.
Monroe County's growth is constrained by a number of characteristics. The vast majority of the County
is environmentally sensitive, comprised of mangrove wetlands, tropical hardwood hammocks, and rare
and endangered species habitats, with world-renowned coral reefs offshore. With one main highway
serving the entire population, traffic is a concern, particularly during hurricane evacuations. Lack of
adequate infrastructure for stormwater and wastewater magnifies the effects of population growth on
nearshore coastal waters. The desirability of the County as a place to live and the limited amount of
developable land have made land costs prohibitively expensive, leading to shortages of affordable
housing and adequate school sites. With infrastructure and the environment showing signs of stress and
over 10,000 undeveloped platted lots, most of the Florida Keys has been designated an Area of Critical
State Concern, under Chapter 380.05, Florida Statutes.
Additional information regarding the County or the region may be found on the Council's website,
u•ww.sfrpc.com.
3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021
Broward (954) 985-4416, Area Codes 305, 407 and 561 (800) 985-4416
SunCom 473-4416, FAX (954) 985-4417. Rtinrnm FAX A71-AA1 7
Summ D, of Staff Analysis
Proposed amendment package #07-2 would revise 40 goals, objectives and polices in the Future Land Use
and Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Monroe Count )"ear 2010 Comprehensive
Plan regarding recreational and commercial working v.aterfronts. The general location of the County is
exhibited as ,\ttachment 1.
The purpose of the Monroe County Working Waterfronts Program is to implement the relevant
provisions of Chapter 2003-157 and Chapter 2006-220 of the Laws of Florida. More specifically, the
purpose is to protect and promote Monroe County's recreational and commercial working waterfronts;
protect and improve commercial, recreational and public access to the shorelines and the waters of
Monroe County; preserve, protect and enhance the cultural heritage and physical character of the area as
a working waterfront community; and enhance the aesthetic character of the area by directing
development in a manner that maintains the working waterfront identity of the County.
Monroe County is experiencing the loss of recreational and commercial working waterfronts and the loss
of public access to the water due to the redevelopment of marine facilities, including, but not limited to
marinas, boatyards, wet and dry storage, fish houses and commercial fishing vessel dockage, at an
unprecedented rate. The County feels that it is important to preserve an acceptable level of working
waterfront while still allowing an appropriate mix of water dependent and non -water dependent uses.
Fundamental elements of working waterfronts should be preserved to ensure that the ongoing need for
working waterfronts is not exacerbated by non -water dependent development or redevelopment of water
dependent facilities currently provided in numerous land use districts and distributed throughout the
County.
In order to address these issues, the proposed amendment would amend existing goals, objectives and
policies and would add new goals, objectives and policies in the Future Land Use and Conservation and
Coastal Management Elements of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
According to the October 3, 2007 letter from Andrew O. Trivette, Monroe County Division Director of
Growth Management, the proposed amendment is supported by the data and analysis and
recommendations of the "Monroe County Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan" and the
"Monroe County Marina Siting Plan".
Obiection
The proposed amendments to 40 goals, objectives and policies in the Future Land Use and
Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan are not clear, contain vague language, are not consistent with the cited documents ("Monroe
County Working -Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan" and the "Monroe County Marina Siting
Plan") and additional supporting data and analysis has not been provided to support the amendments.
For example:
a.) Objective 101.4 requires the County to regulate future development and redevelopment to
maintain the character of the community and protect the natural resources. The objective would be
amended to maintain"and flexibly guide the evolution of "the character of the community and protect
the natural resources. However, the amendment is vague, no policies have been included to
implement the policy, no data and analysis has been included to support the amendment.
b) it is not clear why in Policy 101.4.5 "permanent residential development", other than employee
housing and commercial apartments, are being permitted. Data and analysis have not been included
to support the amendment.
c) It is not clear in Policy 101.4.7 how natural resources would be protected and areas suitable for
water port uses, water -dependent support facilities, maritime uses, and other water dependent
manufacturing and service uses would be conserved if residential (up to 18 dwelling unitsl25 rooms
per acre) and commercial facilities, such as public lodging establishments, are permitted in the
"Maritime Industries Distinct." It is also not clear how the residential and commercial facilities
would be compatible with the industrial and maritime uses permitted in the land use category or if
adequate public faculties and services exist to support the residential and commercial uses.
d) Policy 219.1.1 contains vague language and it is not clear how the policy will be implemented.
Until these issues are resolved, the proposed amendment package is incompatible with the goals and
policies of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SRPP), particularly with the following
goal and policies:
Goal 4 Enhance the economic and environmental sustainability of the Region by ensuring the
adequacy of its public facilities and services.
Policy 4.3 Utilize the existing infrastructure capacity of regional facilities to the maximum extent
consistent with applicable level of service (LOS) standards before encouraging the
expansion of facilities or the development of new capacity.
Goal 11 Encourage and support the implementation of development proposals that conserve
the Region's natural resources, rural and agricultural lands, green infrastructure and:
• utilize existing and planned infrastructure in urban areas;
• enhance the utilization of regional transportation systems;
• incorporate mixed -land use developments,
• recycle existing developed sites; and
• provide for the preservation of historic sites.
Policy 11.10 Decisions regarding the location, rate, and intensity of proposed development shall be
based on the existing or programmed capacity of infrastructure and support services or
on capacity which will be programmed to serve that proposed development; in
addition, consideration should be given to the impact of infrastructure and support
services on natural resources.
GOAL 20 Achieve long-term efficient and sustainable development patterns that protect natural
resources and connect diverse housing, transportation, education, and employment
opportunities.
Policy 20.2 Guide new development and redevelopment within the Region to areas which are
most intrinsically suited for development, including areas:
a. which are least exposed to coastal storm surges;
b. where negative impacts on the natural environment will be minimal; and
c. where public facilities and services already exist, are programmed or, on an
aggregate basis, can be provided most economically.
Recommendation
Council staff recommends that the amendments to the Future Land Use and Conservation and Coastal
Management Elements of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan be revised to eliminate
vague language, to be consistent with "Monroe County Working Waterfronts Preservation Master
Plan" and the "Monroe County Marina Siting Plan" and additional supporting data and analysis be
provided to support the amendments.
Staff Nv ill continue to %vork % ith the County staff throughout the amendment process.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of the amendment for
by the Florida Department of Community :affairs by unanimous cote at its September 19, 2007
Ounty Commission meeting.
Recommendation
Find proposed amendment package #07-2 to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan to be
generally inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida, particularly with
Goals 4, 11 and 20, and Policies 4.3, 11.10, and 20.2. Approve this staff report for transmittal to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs.
Attachment I
-, _
1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
General Location ,IMap
Monroe County
Propt,sed Amendment #07-2
<•,w
Note: Far plannin4 pur�x+ti•. onh. All di,tanr+—1an•
_� - pi,O1K(fOtV
o FLOR A
November 14, 2007
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee. Florida 32399-3000
Mr. D. Rav Eubanks
Bureau of Local Planning
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Re: Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 07-2
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (Department) has reviewed the above -captioned package of proposed
comprehensive plan amendments submitted by Monroe County (County), under the
required provisions of Chapter 163, Part 11, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapters 9J-5 and
9J-11, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The Department provides the following
comments and recommendations to assist your agency in developing the state's response
to the proposed amendment.
OVERVIEW
The transmittal package includes policy modifications related to the recreational, com-
mercial and working waterfronts portions of the Future Land Use, Conservation and
Coastal Management Elements of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The
County proposes the addition of a new Maritime Industries (MI) district to the County's
existing IndustWal land use category, with changes to various policies intended to
establish and conserve waterfront areas for maritime uses. Although the Department
generally supports the intention expressed by the County, several concerns must be
addressed.
The County failed to provide the Department with adequate data and analysis on the
potential resource impacts that creation of the new land use district will engender.
Among other things, the amendment establishes a new district that allows high -density
development, exempts new marinas from the requirements of the Monroe County
Marina Siting Plan (MSP), and refers to a policy in the MSP that it proposes to delete.
" Alore Protection, Less Process "
ivwtv.dep.state f1.us
.. Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Monroe County 07-2
November 14, 2007
Page 2 of 7
DETAILED COMMENTS
Policy 101.4.5
According to the Support Data and Analysis submitted, the purpose of the proposed
amendment is to "maintain and enhance the commercial fishing activities within the
Mixed Use/Commercial land use category." The proposed policy revision would add
the word "evolving" to the description of the community character, which contradicts
the stated purpose of maintaining and enhancing commercial fishing activities. The
proposed amendment would also add the following underlined phrase: "Employee
housing and commercial apartments are also permitted, along with other permanent
residential development compatible with the mix of uses allowed." The Department
does not believe that the addition of permanent residential development will maintain
or enhance the County's commercial fishing industry. Because the proposed text would
allow all categories of residential development within the district, it would increase
economic pressure on current commercial fishing enterprises to sell out and make way
for large residential structures, thus undermining attempts to preserve and enhance
working waterfronts. The Department therefore recommends that the added text
(including the word "evolving") be deleted from the proposed policy.
Policy 101.4.7
The County seeks to add a Maritime Industries (MI) district to the existing Industrial land
use category. The stated purpose of the new district is "to establish and conserve areas
suitable for water port uses, water -dependent support facilities, and maritime uses such
as ship building, ship repair and other water dependent manufacturing and service
uses." While the stated purpose of the new district is acceptable, several components of
the proposal are problematic. No supporting data and analysis was submitted upon
which the Department could base an analysis of the proposed text. The new policy
language also promotes high -density residential development in environmentally
sensitive areas, and allows supportive workforce housing in offsite areas. The proposed
density for the MI district is 8-12 du/acre (or 10-15 rooms/acre), which is comparable to
the Residential- High category in the County's comprehensive plan. The amendment
contained no information on the general areas of the County that may qualify for the
new designation. Also, while the policy states that "no development order for new
residential uses or structures shall be issued except for portions of the MI District
unsuitable for dockage of vesselsLI" the language provides no details about who would
make the suitability determination and the criteria upon which that determination
would be made.
Other parts of the policy contain vague or contradictory statements. The Support Data
and Analysis submitted with the amendment states that the intent of Policy 101.4.7 "is
. , Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Monroe County 07-2
November 14, 2007
Page 3 of 7
to clarify that the MI land use district's main purpose is to establish and conserve areas
for maritime uses, including employee housing." The proposal would, however, allow
high -density "public lodging establishments," which contradicts the intent of the police
and allows a huge loophole for new hotel/motel development. Other provisions in the
policy, such as "[dlwelling unit allocations attributable to houseboats shall be transfer-
able to uplands[,]" create additional questions. How many units could be transferred
under that provision? Could uplands located anywhere in the County receive those
transferred density credits? What protection measures are in place to ensure that only
existing houseboats receive the density transfer?
If adopted, Policy 101.4.7 will allow more high -density residential development along
the waterfronts of the Florida Keys. In addition to increasing hurricane evacuation
times, implementation of the proposed policy could exacerbate existing water quality
problems. Recent studies have identified nearshore water quality problems in Monroe
County. In a comprehensive 1999 report entitled Water Quality Concerns in the Florida
Keys: Sources, Effects, and Solutions, William L. Kruczynski states:
Historically, development in the Keys relied on the use of cesspits and
septic tanks which provide little treatment of domestic wastewater in
porous lime rock substrates. In addition, stormwater runs untreated
into nearshore surface waters. Lack of nutrient removal from domestic
wastewater and stormwater has resulted in the addition of nutrient -rich
waste waters into confined waters and adjacent nearshore areas. The
cumulative effects of these discharges have led to water quality degra-
dation of these inshore areas.'
By allowing the development of high -density residential development within the MI
district, Policy 101.4.7 avoids application of important environmental protection
measures to waterfront development.
Objective 212.4
Revised Objective Policy 212.4 states that "Monroe County shall adhere to criteria set
forth in the Marina Siting Plan [MSPI for the development of new marinas and the
redevelopment and expansion of current marine facilities." No further identification of
the intended siting plan is contained in the proposed amendment, and the MSP was not
appended to or adopted by reference in the amendment. Because the MSP was not
Dr. Kruczynski's white paper, prepared under the auspices of the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary's Water Quality Protection Program, can be found at the Sanctuary's web
site at h2p://floridakeys.noaa.gov/research monitoring/wgpp white paper.pdf
Mr. D. Rav Eubanks
Monroe County 07-2
November 14, 2007
Page 4 of 7
clearly identified in the amendment and has not been adopted into the County's com-
prehensive plan, it can be changed at any time by the Board of County Commissioners
without going through the comprehensive plan amendment process. The Department
is therefore concerned that significant changes can be made to the MSP without review
by state and regional agencies. The Department recommends that the MSP or other
marina siting criteria be adopted into the County's comprehensive plan.
Department staff also notes that the latest draft of the MSP (April 2007) makes several
references to Policy 212.4.3, which would be deleted by the proposed amendment. The
Department encourages the County to either retain all policies referenced in the MSP or
revise the MSP so there are no conflicts or omissions between the two documents.
Policy 212.4.1
Proposed Policy 212.4.1 provides that "[a]pplicants for development approval of
marinas with three (3) or more slips, other than marinas in existing harbors located in
MI District, shall meet the following: 1. Monroe County's marina siting criteria set
forth in the Monroe County Marina SitingPlan[.]" lan[.]" This provision will exempt marinas
in an MI district from the MSP siting criteria, even though Objective 212.4 states that
"Monroe County shall adhere to criteria set forth in the Marina Siting Plan for the
development of new marinas and the redevelopment and expansion of current marine
facilities."
Exempting new or expanded marinas located in an MI district from marina siting
criteria is highly inappropriate, since the proposed amendment deletes nearly all of the
County's current siting requirements (Policies 212.4.1, 212.4.2, 212.4.3, and 212.4.6), and
the County has just invested a great deal of time and money to create a siting plan that
would protect the County's fragile and valuable natural resources. Additionally, no
supporting data and analysis was provided to suggest the areas that might qualify for
the exemption or the environmental impacts that could result from application of the
exemption, such as degradation of the nearshore water quality. The Department cannot
support the changes contained in proposed Policy 212.4.1 and strongly recommends
that the County remove the revisions from the proposed amendment.
Policy 219.8.1
The County's proposal to encourage certain types of development along waterfront
areas is vague, lacks adequate definitions or standards, and will lead to increased
development - particularly in conjunction with the County's adoption of the MI district.
Policy 219.8.1 states:
Nlr. D. Ray Eubanks
Monroe County 07-2
November 14, 2007
Page 5 of 7
The County shall provide land -use bonuses to encourage development that
provides Commercial, Recreational and Public Access to the shorelines and
waters of Monroe County. These bonuses may be granted in the form of
increased FAR, increased number of slips, parking variances, increased area
for water -related uses, or other measure of land use intensity appropriate to
permitted uses on the parcels) proposed for development.
This policy would encourage more intense development along the shorelines and
waters of Monroe County, thereby leading to increased impacts on the surrounding
waters. No data or calculations were provided with regard to the amount of increases
in intensity that could result from the bonuses. The Department believes Policy 219.8.1
is unnecessary and strongly recommends that the County remove the proposed policy
from the submittal.
Marina Siting Plan
Since the MSP is widely referenced and its criteria relied upon heavily in the proposed
amendments, Department staff has reviewed the April 2007 draft document and offers
the following comments.
Section 18-21.0041(1)(b)9, F.A.C., states as follows:
No application to lease state owned sovereignty submerged lands for the
purpose of providing multi -slip docking facilities shall be considered for
approval unless there are no benthic communities present where the boat
mooring area, turning basins, mooring piles or other structures are to be
located, excepting any main access docks required to cross benthic com-
munities to reach acceptable areas. This shall not preclude them from
applying for consent to use state owned submerged lands for the purpose
of using the minimum amount necessary to obtain reasonable ingress and
egress.
Multi -slip docks are defined as three or more slips, and benthic communities includes
seagrass beds, hard and soft corals or sponges. This rule should be referenced in the
MSP and cited in appropriate locations throughout the document, such as on page 10
under State Regulations and on page 39 under Site Suitability Analysis. Also, the Site
Suitability Zones listed on pages 13 and the Exclusionary, Preferred and Conditional
Zones described on pages 4041 should be revised to reflect this regulation. In addition,
the Department suggests that Monroe County Code subsection 9.5-349(m)(5) may
require revision, because it implies that a marina on sovereign submerged lands can be
built over a benthic community.
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Monroe County 07-2
November 14, 2007
Page 6 of 7
As stated under the State Regulation section on page 11 of the MSP, most Monroe
County waters are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). Accordingly,
Subsection 373.414(1), F.S., should also be referenced in that section of the MSP, since
activities in OFWs are required to meet higher water quality standards. The references
contained in the Federal Regulation section (4-6) should also be verified. For example,
although the State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) was listed, Monroe County is
specifically excluded from the SPGP. Thus, that reference should be deleted.
The MSP references the North Carolina Waterfront Access Study Committee Final
Report on page 49. The Department can not comment as to its applicability to the MSP,
however, since the report was not included in the submittal package. Finally, the maps
included in the MSP depict several coastal islands from North Key Largo to Key West
as conditional areas for marinas. If those sites remain as conditional marina locations,
they must comply with Rule 18-21.004(1)(j), F.A.C., which should be referenced. In
addition, the maps appear to designate some mangrove areas, especially on North Key
Largo, as conditional marina sites. Mangrove forests are not appropriate locations for
marinas, and the Department suggests the maps be reevaluated and edited.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the information and analysis submitted, the Department finds that the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment does not meet the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II,
F.S., and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., and is therefore objectionable. The proposed amendment
was not supported by adequate data and analysis and contains components that contra-
dict the stated intent of the amendment. One of the most troublesome features is that
proposed densities for the MI district are comparable to densities allowed in the existing
Residential -High land use category. In addition, several policies contain vague language
that may lead to further problems as plan policies are implemented. The County should
address the issues and questions contained in this letter and provide adequate data and
analysis to support the proposed amendment.
The County may also wish to review new water supply guidelines developed by the
Department, the water management districts and the Department of Community Affairs,
which provide detailed information on the data and analysis local governments should
submit to support proposed comprehensive plan amendments and the 10-year water
supply facility work plan due by August 15, 2008. The Guide can be found on DCA's
website at httl2://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/publications/finalggidelines pdf.
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Monroe County 07-2
November 14, 2007
Page 7 of 7
The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed
amendment. Should you have questions or require additional information, please do
not hesitate to contact Mr. Chris Stahl at (850) 245-2163 or Chris.StahlC1,dep.state.fl.us.
Yours sincerely,
Sally B. Mann, Director
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
SBM/cjs
'
November 20, 2007
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Florida Fish
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
and Wildlife
Conservation
Re: Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (Proposed Amend:nent 07-02)
Commission
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
Commissioners
Rodney Barreto
The Imperiled Species Management Section of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Chair
Commission (FWC) has coordinated agency review of the referenced document, and provides the
Miami
following comments and recommendations.
Kathy Barco
Jacksonville
Description
Ronald M. Bergeron
Fort Lauderdale
Richard A. Corbett
Monroe County proposes to amend its Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan by including an ordinance
Tampa
to address its needs to promote recreational, commercial, and working waterfronts. Our review is
Dwight Stephenson
limited to the amendments made under Goal 212 of the Conservation and Coastal Element. This
Delray Beach
goal states: "Monroe County shall prioritize shoreline land uses and establish criteria for
Kenneth W. Wright
shoreline development in order to preserve and enhance coastal resources and to ensure the
Winter Park
continued economic viability of the County." Objective 212.4 addresses marina siting, and its
Brian a YaDlonski
Tallahassee
associated hoes provide specific criteria b which marinas will be sited. The amendment
Po P sPee Y
deletes the part of the objective that requires the County to analyze future needs and develop
criteria that "meet or exceed state standards" and deletes Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3 and
Executive Staff
212.4.6. It replaces these by incorporating the Marina Siting Plan prepared by the Catanese
Kenneth D. Haddad
Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions at Florida Atlantic University and dated April
Executive Director
2007 (available online at http://sfrpc.corwMCWorkwater.htm into Policy 212.4.4.1.
Victor). Heller
Assistant Executive
Director
The policies that are removed include requirements that:
Karen Ventimiglia
l . marina siting criteria must be "approved by DER [Department of Environmental
Deputy Chief of Staff
Regulation], DNR [Department of Natural Resources] and ACOE [U.S. Army Cotes of
Engineers]" (Policy 212.4.1.2),
2. the County "shall complete a survey of all existing recreational and commercial
Office of Policy and
marinas," with stipulations as to what that survey must include (Policy 212.4.2);
Stakeholder
3. marinas are to be located in places where
Coordination
h Mary Ann Poo
a. there is "maximum physical advantages —and where no unreasonable or
Director
excessive impacts are foreseen on marine resources";
(850) 410-5272
b. do not destroy "significant marine wetlands or seagrass beds"; and
(850) 922-5679 FAX
c. consider access through existing channels, "benthic vegetation and faunal
• assemblages"; impacts on crocodiles, sea turtles, and manatees; and
"minimization of shoreline modification" and areas where prop -dredging has
been a problem; (Policy 212.4.3)
Managing ilsh and wildlife
4. prohibit new marinas with three or more slips until existing marinas within five miles are
resources for their rang-
term well-being and the
full utilized (Policy )
y (P cy 212.4.E .
benefit of people.
The Marina Siting Plan that is to replace this language relies on GIS data, using water depth as
620 South Meridian street the "critical factor" (see p. 10, first full paragraph), with water quality playing a secondary role in
Tallahassee. Florida the case of conditional areas, to establish three categories of suitability for siting marinas:
32399-1600
Voice: (850) 488 4676 exclusionary, preferred, and conditional. The Marina Siting Plan includes Marina Siting
Hearing/speech impaired: Suitability Maps with polygons showing the locations of preferred and conditional areas. The
i800) 955-8771 (T) plan provides other data layers (Figures 1 through 43 and in the Map Atlas for Marine Facilities
(8001955-8770 (V)
MyFWC.cnm
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Page 2
hm:ember 20, 2007
Inventory) that meet some of the requirements of Policy 212.4.4, but it is not clear how they were
used to establish the suitability categories.
The Marina Siting Suitability Maps show conditional areas scattered throughout nearly all of the
Keys, except between Crab Key at Mde Marker 25 and Key West at Mile Marker 7. The maps
indicate preferred areas primarily in Islamorada, Marathon, Big Pine Key, and Key Nest. There
are no exclusionary areas shown on the maps, and we assume that this is because any area not
indicated as preferred or conditional is exclusionary.
Concerns and Recommendations
The FWC supports the Working Waterfronts concept, and has no objection to the removal of the
prohibition of new public access marinas as long as the environmentally protective measures
currently in the comprehensive plan are not removed FWC also supports the inclusion of a
marina siting plan into the comprehensive plan; however, we do not recommend incorporation
until the current marina siting plan has been revised. We have concerns about issues not
addressed by the April 2007 Marina Siting Plan. This review does not go into the Marina Siting
Plan in detail, but highlights the main problem points that staff identified.
Concern: While water depth may be an adequate criterion for the protection of seagrasses, the
Marina Siting Plan does not replace all of the planning guidance provided by the removed
Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3. For instance:
• The plan does not appear to address protection of significant marine wetlands (Policy
212.4.3) or minimization of shoreline modifications (Policy 212.4.3.3.1). Some of the
sites are within the Florida Forever acquisition boundary.
• The plan discusses crocodiles, manatees, and sea turtles, but guidance appears to be
limited to provisions in Objective 207.8.3 ("developing a boating impacts management
program for marine turtles and manatees"), with reference to Objective 203.6 and
associated policies. Objective 203.6 (see
http:;;monroccofl.virtualtownlial].net'Pages/btonroeCoFL Growth'CompPlan2010!W5c
y) focuses on guidance to coordinate with other agencies, including the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary, DER, DNR, and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Agency to identify environmental and regulatory issues and to help formulate plans; it
does not appear to provide guidance on the same planning issues that would have been
addressed by Policy 212.4.3.3. While it discusses crocodiles, the Marina Siting Plan does
not provide specific planning guidance.
• The deleted policies require some very specific issues (e.g., number of wct and dry slips,
breakout of slips by boat size, availability for public use, availability of pump -out
facilities) be taken into consideration in developing marine siting criteria; however, the
Marina Siting Plan does not appear to have taken those issues into account. As a result,
the Marina Siting Plan does not provide specific planning guidance with respect to an
acceptable amount of infrastructure for permitting considerations, including those related
to natural resources and listed species.
• Policy 212.4.1.2 required approval of marina siting criteria by DER, DNR, and ACOE,
and it is reasonable to assume that this requirement would have involved the Marine
Patrol and the program that dealt with sea turtles and manatees, both of which were in
DNR. Subsequent agency reorganizations have placed both of these programs in the
FWC; however, the April 2007 Marina Siting Plan was not coordinated with those
components of the FWC.
Concern: The Marina Siting Plan also relies on existing county ordinances and agency
regulatory programs for setting some of its sideboards, but this approach does not appear to
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Page 3
November 20, 2007
provide the value that additional planning guidance would provide via a comprehensive
growth -management plan. It also relies on FWC's management plan for manatees; however,
this plan has not yet been approved by the FWC Commissioners. Incorporating it into the
comprehensive plan via the Marine Siting Plan before it is approved would be premature.
Concern: The application process flowchart in Appendix A-1 indicates that a parcel is
considered "conditional" if it is in an area of known American crocodile range. Map 10
(Monroe County American Crocodile Habitats) in Appendix D may inadvertently be
confusing because crocodiles have been documented as far as Key West and, once, even in
the Dry Tortugas.
Recommendation: We believe that the Marina Siting Plan contains useful information and
guidance; however, we recommend that it be revised to address the protective measures that
would have been provided by following Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3 before including it by
reference into the comprehensive plan. We strongly recommend that the Marina Siting Plan
include policies for the development of land development regulations that would have been
addressed by the deleted policies. We would be willing to help with this revision, and believe
that doing so would be consistent with the intent of Policy 212.4.1.1.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
amendments, and hope we can help with addressing issues that we touched in this letter. If
you or your staff would like to coordinate further on the recommendations contained in this
letter, please contact me at 850-410-5272 or email me at NiarvAnn.Poolcfa-.'41yFWC.com
and I will be glad to help make the necessary arrangements. If your staff has any technical
questions regarding our comments regarding manatees, please contact Mary Duncan by
telephone at 850-9224330 or by email at 14Marv.Duncan<Fi-myfwc.com.
Sincerely,
Mary Ann Poole, Director
Office of Policy and Stakeholder Coordination
map/md
Monroe 071067
ENV 1-12-2
cc: Bob Dennis, DCA, Tallahassee
Mayte Santamaria, DCA, Tallahassee
Rich Jones, Monroe County
Kalani Cairns, USFWS, Vero Beach
SOUTH ftom A WATER MANAGEMEN DISTRICT
W3301 Gun Club Read, WestPalm Beach, Florida i3-CS • (361) 686-MOO - FL WATS 1-60C-432-2C-3 TDD (:bl) 697-2574
Mailing A ?_ <s. i O. Box 2-680, West Palm cer,4, FL k--1E-16FO vr: vivsfc d.gov
GOV 08-20
November 21, 2,30
Mr. Ray Eubanks, Administrator
Plan Review and Processing
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
Subject: Proposed Amendment Comments
Monroe County, DCA #07-2
Monroe County has proposed text amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element in its Comprehensive Plan to address
redevelopment of waterfronts. The South Florida Water Management District (District)
has completed its review of the proposed amendment package. The District
recommends that additional steps be taken to address potential water supply issues.
The County's proposed change to Policy 101.4.7 significantly increases the residential
and transient density in the Maritime Industry District within the Industrial land use
category and provides for affordable housing in any land use district. The Policy
increases the "Allocated Density" from 1 to 8-12 residential units and from 0 to 10-15
rooms per acre. Further, the Policy increases the *Maximum Net Density' for affordable
housing from 2 to 12-18 residential units and from 0 to 25 rooms per acre.
The amendment should be modified to address the potential increased potable water
demand that could result from higher densities of both residential units and transient
rooms in the Maritime Industry District and affordable housing units in all districts. In
coordination with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), the County should
quantify the additional demand that would be generated by the proposed amendment
and demonstrate that water supplies and associated public facilities are available to
meet those demands. [see ss. 163.3167(13) & 163.3177(6)(a), F.S]. In particular, the
County and FKAA should indicate whether the potential change in demand can be
accommodated by the FKAA's consumptive use permit.
_ If you have any questions or require additional information, please call John Mulliken,
Director, yAter Supply Planning Division, at (561) 682-6649.
Water Resources
Mr. Ray Eubanks, Administrator
November 20, 2007
Page 2
C M/ke/pv
Jerry Buckley, DCA (Keys Office)
Carolyn Dekle, SFRPC
Bob Dennis, DCA
Kate Edgerton, SFWMD
Andrew Trivette, Monroe County
s� x��tti
FLOP.iDA DEPARTME- T OF STATE
,curt S. Browning
Secretary of State
DI IS`ON OF HISTORIC.=%L RESOURCES
October 30, 2007
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard _
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Re: Historic Preservation Review of the Monroe County (07-2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
According to this agency's responsibilities under Sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida
Statutes, and Chapter W-5, Florida Administrative Code, we reviewed the above document to
determine if data regarding historic resources have been given sufficient consideration in the
request to amend the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan.
We reviewed one proposed text amendment regarding recreational, commercial and working
waterfronts, to consider the potential effects of this action on historic resources. While our
cursory review suggests that the proposed changes may have no adverse effects on historic
resources, it is the county's responsibility to ensure that the proposed revisions will not have an
adverse effect on significant archaeological or historic resources in Monroe County.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. Harp of
the Division's Compliance Review staff at (850) 245-6333.
Sincerely, 1.
1�.."- ? G. _
Frederick P. Gaske, Director
xc: Mr. Bob Dennis
500 S. Bronough Street . Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 . http:Itwww.fiheritage.com
O Director's Office O Archaeological Research Historic Preservation O Historical Museums
(890) 245 6:i00 • FAX 24 -&M (M) 245-64" • FAX. 245-6452 (850) 245-633.3 • FAX: 245-6437 (830) 245-6400 • FAX 245-6433
0 Southeast Regional Office 13 Northeast Regional Office 13 Central Florida Rgponal Office
Florida Department of Transportation
CHARLIE CRIST District Sii
GOVERNOR 1000 NW I I 1 AvenM Miami, FL 33172
Phone: 305-470-5464
November 7, 2007
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Division of Community Planning
Florida Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
STEPHANIE C. KOPELOUSOS
SECRETARY
Subject Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (Amendment 07-2)
The Florida Department of Transportation, District 6, has reviewed the proposed
Amendment 07-02 for Monroe County. Based on our review, the Department has
determined that there are no impacts on State Roads. Therefore, we have no specific
objections or recommendations at this time. Please contact Phil Steinmiller, at 305-470-
5825, if you have any questions concerning our response.
Sincerely,
4'/O� 144--
Alice N. Bravo, P.E.
District Director of Transportation Systems
Development
Cc: Aileen Boucle, AiCP
Phil Steinmiller